MSFlight isn't FSNext, welcome to waiting a bit more :)

[Paxx]

While it would be easy to jump on the bandwagon here and express my disappointment with the direction in which MSFlight appears to have departed, it occurred to me that I wasn't interested in another flight “game” anyway, so this product really isn't the coveted FSNext we all wanted. ... Whew!

I say Whew! For a few reasons. One, I don't believe any performance gains beyond localized tweaking have been achieved. The MSFlight suggested system “minimums” and “recommended” tell me this. Second, what is an obvious attempt at something “new” in the name of “the legacy” tastes wrong to me. Sure I understand wanting to broaden the market, but it appears to me MSFlight has chosen the “walled garden” approach. I hear that didn't go over well with a certain portion of the legacy. Frankly the “walled garden” is everything the legacy isn't about. This philosophy may or may not work, so be it.

I'm pretty sure the broad strategic plan with MSFlight is a marketing decided, demographic friendly, fit into the overall Games for Windows – Live scenario. Whether this plan succeeds to broaden the overall FS user base falls into two options. Option 1; if it does become a successful revenue stream – execute Plan B (more in-house/contracted Down Loadable Content), and Plan B1; (re-examine eventual/potential performance problem again, possibly buying Lockheed's improved ESP engine, if Plan B is successful). Option 2; if it does not become a profitable revenue stream, fold and think of some new dice to roll. The coveted FSNext (without 3rd party Developers apparently, but I digress) resides two or three years down the line if Option 1/Plan B/B1 succeeds - maybe.

Hey, its business. Seems to me to be a huge gamble with continued legacy loyalty, but I'll download it and try it out. I just won't expect it to be FSNext. Many games/sims are given a try on my hard drives, few remain long.

Lets face it, the only “problem” with FSX as it is today is performance. I've said it a thousand times, (remember?) “... expect lower frame rates around detailed urban and airport areas with a lot of A.I”. This “problem” is slowly but surely diminishing. Fact of the matter is, the legacy FS Series crowd has always dealt with performance problems. FSX takes/took it to new heights and Murphy's old law bent a little bit. The good news here is that even off the shelf computer systems are approaching 4GHz, which as we all know really begins to put the shine into FSX. Add-on developers will benefit from this fact alone regardless of any MSFlight inspired new customers. The legacy community is alive and thriving from what I can see. Freedom to develop and an open platform built the legacy community and it is sure that they will remain where this philosophy is cherished. Whether Microsoft decides to participate or not remains to be seen a few years from now after their "FS series strategic direction" experiment.

[ricardo_NY1]

Lets face it, the only “problem” with FSX as it is today is performance.

I agree on many points, specifically the FSX performance issue. If we had an 8ghz cpu coming on the market in Spring, it would overshadow this entire Flight circus. I'll be the first to say that I don't believe 4-5ghz is the target. I believe that to run FSX in the way we can run FS2004 today, we need at least 6+ghz. I don't know if we'll be seeing that any day soon. I'd also like to highlight an idea...........that FSX will most likely go on to become the most developed for simulator in the history of the title. That is actually a pretty darn good thing.

[Paxx]

Yes I used to think 5GHz, but I suspect you are correct 6GHz might pull the load. Thing is, at about 3.5GHz and up with proper slider adjustment FSX is flyable with most detailed add-on scenery and aircraft. Sure it isn't the best frame rate-wise and having 6GHz would help this but now that I have a 6GHz system (hypothetical) new add-ons with higher detail will evolve and so on. This is one aspect I enjoy about the old FS series, taxing equipment, but that is a different thread.

It has been stated before that the FSX engine needs a total redesign in order to use hardware available today effectively and efficiently. From what I gather MSFlight is not this rebuild, but a repackaging of a user experience and graphical engine to suite the expected demographic. One day a flight engine written for 64bit systems will arise, this is the nature of the legacy community, from whom it comes remains in the future - for now.

[Propane]

I say Whew! For a few reasons. One, I don't believe any performance gains beyond localized tweaking have been achieved. The MSFlight suggested system “minimums” and “recommended” tell me this.All I will say is that you are wrong about this point :).

[Paxx]

Ok, your either a giant troll, or you have proof.
Dispense with the proof. Keep the troll to yourself.

[ReggieF5421]

We know that some people have the beta - and can see if performance has changed - but cannot tell us how the know.

I would think some significant performance gains would be pretty easy for the developers at MS - all they would have to do is make it really work with multi-core, and offload some of the draw routines to the GPU.

[torkermax]

GPU usage 75%. memory usage 39%, CPU usage 35%. Wouldn't that be about perfect?

[Paxx]

We know that some people have the beta - and can see if performance has changed - but cannot tell us how the know.

I would think some significant performance gains would be pretty easy for the developers at MS - all they would have to do is make it really work with multi-core, and offload some of the draw routines to the GPU.

Yes, I understand your point. I also remember a certain demo based around an island that ran fairly well on medium system hardware circa 2006. I also believe if break-thru performance was obtained on the ESP engine (or variation) and MSFlight takes full advantage of it, there would be golden howls from the MS marketing department pontificating that fact. Instead we get what should have been the FSX system recommendations. For me, not encouraging. Mind you I am not worried about MSFlight performance around Hawaii on my system. I'm sure it will be spectacular. If in the future, however, I have downloaded a MSFlight New York City and Surrounding Area package with FSX add-on detail or better and performance is a dog, I think we will know why.

This is why I have performance concerns before playing the $$$ DLC scenario with this particular title and company.

[angels355]

FSAerosoft?

[Propane]

Ok, your either a giant troll, or you have proof.
Dispense with the proof. Keep the troll to yourself.You can take it from someone who's seen it in action on a 3-4 year old setup, can compare it on that same setup to FSX, and has no reason to lie on a silly online discussion board.... or you can just ignore it. Anything can still change in the time to release of course, but so far so good. It beats digging around in cfg files before getting anywhere near decent performance :).

[Paxx]

Comparing it to your FSX install tells me nothing. Running it on 3 to 4 year old equipment tells me nothing. Your proclamation tells me nothing. It would be wise at this point to advise you to cease your comments. Violating an NDA may have dire consequences for you.

I hope you're right and I am wrong. The unknown becomes known in the spring if we are to believe marketing's take on the release schedule.

[JSkorna]

Relax everyone please!

[benEggleston16]

FSAerosoft?
What is the Aerosoft simulator everyone talks about?
I keep up to date with FS news for the past couple of years, so is it something old?
Is it just a reference to the quality of FS addons areosoft make means it's a new simulator?
I'm pretty sure aerosoft won't make their own simulator as they've just pledged allegiance to X-Plane 10 and they either will only sell one or the other.

[Paxx]

Briefly, 2 years ago+/- Aerosoft looked into developing their own simulator, either in-house or with a partner. It didn't work out.

[angels355]

What is the Aerosoft simulator everyone talks about?
I keep up to date with FS news for the past couple of years, so is it something old?
Is it just a reference to the quality of FS addons areosoft make means it's a new simulator?
I'm pretty sure aerosoft won't make their own simulator as they've just pledged allegiance to X-Plane 10 and they either will only sell one or the other.

Did you say that Aerosoft is supporting XP10? That with Carenado is good news. I was disappointed with the XP9 demo. I think I am going to get Battlefield 3, it has an advanced cutting edge engine, maybe need for speed also.

Flight is old outdated technology, it's a joke. MS FS used to be about exceeding the capabilities of current hardware. How old is this technology, eight years? What happened to the razzle dazzle of MS?

[benEggleston16]

Briefly, 2 years ago+/- Aerosoft looked into developing their own simulator, either in-house or with a partner. It didn't work out.
Thanks, interesting idea but like I/you say, it obviously collapsed.

[benEggleston16]

Did you say that Aerosoft is supporting XP10? That with Carenado is good news. I was disappointed with the XP9 demo. I think I am going to get Battlefield 3, it has an advanced cutting edge engine, maybe need for speed also.

Flight is old outdated technology, it's a joke. MS FS used to be about exceeding the capabilities of current hardware. How old is this technology, eight years? What happened to the razzle dazzle of MS?
Aerosoft and Just Flight as well as the big stores sell Carenado X-Plane software, Just Flight's is easiest for me in the UK, I think it works out cheaper too.
I hope you're not getting Battlefield 3 for the flying, I've seen DS games better than that, all the battlefield 3 flying has going for it is graphics and FLIGHT has those too.
I wouldn't mind FLIGHT working on old tech, my PC is about 5 years old, after two years of tweaking, FSX just about woks fine as long as I steer clear of built-up area with 3rd party planes, AI and wx.
RAM is at full capacity 4GB, hard disk too 200GB/220GB and there's no upgrades coming soon as I'm 14 and can only just afford software, hardware is a fantasy.

[angels355]

Aerosoft and Just Flight as well as the big stores sell Carenado X-Plane software, Just Flight's is easiest for me in the UK, I think it works out cheaper too.
I hope you're not getting Battlefield 3 for the flying, I've seen DS games better than that, all the battlefield 3 flying has going for it is graphics and FLIGHT has those too.
I wouldn't mind FLIGHT working on old tech, my PC is about 5 years old, after two years of tweaking, FSX just about woks fine as long as I steer clear of built-up area with 3rd party planes, AI and wx.
RAM is at full capacity 4GB, hard disk too 200GB/220GB and there's no upgrades coming soon as I'm 14 and can only just afford software, hardware is a fantasy.

Nice to talk to you Ben. I want to get Battlefield 3 to experience what a cutting edge simulation engine is like.

Do you fly X-Plane 9 or 10? If so how do you like it, and how are the payware planes?

[benEggleston16]

And you angels, though think I mislead you slightly, I don't have X-Plane, my carenado planes are FSX only. I did have the XP9 demo but like many thought it lacked refinement, felt half-finished and deleted it, most use it just for the flight dynamics. Aerosoft are releasing 10 in February though it is outside my budget, AS are including some of their own custom EU airports in the package (called the 'US Community Edition' apparently because US customers were pressurzing them to release it too soon!)
I imagine you know what the carenado FSX planes are like, they are probably the most popular GA planes for any FS platform.
What platform do you plan to run Battlefield on?

[goetzsch]

Well - nothing to say against a fun flight game, which can be used by people, just enjoying a little free-flight and mission based flight excercises.
But that's all it will be ...

But - what bothers me the most is that it's announced in this fact sheet as "...Microsoft Flight is an entirely new PC game..." !?

Mmh ... i know the flightsim series since version FS4 'til FSX + Acceleration ... and what i can see, viewing the screenshots and videos, is nothing else than
an addon (house-made) enhanced FSX - using detailed ground-textures and geo data for islands of Hawaii - such a small area of the world, stuff, which can
already be done in nowadays addons - in quality and detail. The same goes for the planes - nothing already possible since the existance of FSX.

It looks 'exactly' like FSX with quality-addons and scripted mission modes. Something new from ground definitely would have a different look and feel,
but it doesn't.

So what is 'new' here ??
Well, maybe the program data and ressources structure got changed to something, that can't be used by 3rd party producers,
since with it's basic free to play model it has to live from addon sale to stay alive and in business.

You can't fill this small portion of the world with 747s, 380s and other mighty flying machines - who wants to fly a mission from island 1 to island 2 in a 747 ?!
Doesn't make sense - or fly an obstacle course with a 380 ?! Naah ... won't work and is senseless.

If MS Flight will exist as it is - okay - but it's not an "entirely new" flight game. It's just a 'streamlined' FSX ...

Now ... back to discover new things in X-Plane 10 ...

[angels355]

And you angels, though think I mislead you slightly, I don't have X-Plane, my carenado planes are FSX only. I did have the XP9 demo but like many thought it lacked refinement, felt half-finished and deleted it, most use it just for the flight dynamics. Aerosoft are releasing 10 in February though it is outside my budget, AS are including some of their own custom EU airports in the package (called the 'US Community Edition' apparently because US customers were pressurzing them to release it too soon!)
I imagine you know what the carenado FSX planes are like, they are probably the most popular GA planes for any FS platform.
What platform do you plan to run Battlefield on?

RIght now, probably an Intel Q9450 core 2 quad processor, 4 gb ram, Asus 550 Ti 1 gb video card, OCZ 750 modular psu, probably 64 bit Win 7.

I hope to study hard in school and do well.

[benEggleston16]

RIght now, probably an Intel Q9450 core 2 quad processor, 4 gb ram, Asus 550 Ti 1 gb video card, OCZ 750 modular psu, probably 64 bit Win 7.

I hope to study hard in school and do well.

How old are you exactly? I may have mentioned I'm fourteen, I wonder how old the average simmer is, everyone's saying this game is for little children but I reckon more simmers are children than we credit.

[sky44]

I agree on many points, specifically the FSX performance issue. If we had an 8ghz cpu coming on the market in Spring, it would overshadow this entire Flight circus. I'll be the first to say that I don't believe 4-5ghz is the target. I believe that to run FSX in the way we can run FS2004 today, we need at least 6+ghz. I don't know if we'll be seeing that any day soon. I'd also like to highlight an idea...........that FSX will most likely go on to become the most developed for simulator in the history of the title. That is actually a pretty darn good thing.

Those that are still getting bad frame rates in FSX should update their PC's to the needed specs. Today FSX flies as smooth as FS9 in my machine, if you still have the PC and Video card you had three years ago it will never fly around N.Y at 30-40 FPS which is normal. I think in the next two years we'll see two or three NEW Sims which will challenge FSX and X-Plane. Flight is a game totally out of the Sim market.

[angels355]

How old are you exactly? I may have mentioned I'm fourteen, I wonder how old the average simmer is, everyone's saying this game is for little children but I reckon more simmers are children than we credit.

I'm much older. Started flying a real plane when I was 7, while also was taught aerodynamics/aeronautical engineering and a little bit of mechanical engineering starting at that age also. Studied hard through school in the sciences, participated in athletics, went to college, worked hard in the working world, might go back to college. It is difficult to get ahead in this world, a solid education is extremely important for success. Athletics is important also. If I had had Flight SImulator when I was a kid I would have gone much farther.

[raimondo2]

If I had had Flight SImulator when I was a kid I would have gone much farther.

good point !
unfortunately the future generation will be limited to collect coins rather than learning !!

[angels355]

If I had had Flight SImulator when I was a kid I would have gone much farther.

good point !
unfortunately the future generation will be limited to collect coins rather than learning !!

Yeah, I had the real plane in my hands from 7 to 11 years old flying cross country in thin air, between sharp white rocky mountains rising up on either side--really cleared the sinuses! I didn't need dumbed down aviation when I was a kid.

[loki]

unfortunately the future generation will be limited to collect coins rather than learning !!

In the current economic environment, collecting coins may be the better way to go... ;)

[angels355]

In the current economic environment, collecting coins may be the better way to go... ;)

Friend going the low tech way, company handyman, just told me that he along with everyone else in his department were laid off with one day's notice. I was shocked. There's money in oil, contrary to PC opinion, there's a job boom in Texas w/ oil. The world's economy relies on oil.

I'm a scientist which doesn't help when people routinely dumb down their resume in order to get a job. I tend to be proud of my studies and acheivements so just go on and on with all humbleness of Muhamid Ali, "Klubber Lang", and Arnold Scharzenegger. When my father told me to try to be more humble on my resume I responded by saying "I'm the baddest in the world! I'm the baddest in the world!" --"Klubber Lang" Rocky 3.

I need more challenges from a simulator.

[aussielozza70]

What do you mean isn't the FSNEXT? My understanding is that it is the next generation of flight simulation

[angels355]

I am probably the only one with this veiwpoint, my answser is yes and no. Yes because in my opinion it is polished and refined FSX. However NO, at the same time. Development of FSXI was stopped, the Aces development team was fired because management could not control their tempers and get along, so with their managerial powers wiped out FSXI. Development of a flight simulator or game was moved to MS game development, and the entire concept and format of what Flight Simulator is, was completely reorganized and repackaged in a new type of marketing package. No SDK for third party free or payware add-ons. Instead all add-ons would have to be purchased through MS. No freeware, and we can't buy planes or other software add-ons from companies such as PMDG. Flight is a closed community program. What everyone is so upset about is that MS won't release the SDK to allow development of free or payware third party add-ons, as we can wiith all previous MS flight simulators, not to mention other competing flight simulators such as X-Plane, Flightgear, and the Fly! series as well.

I am also upset because by now they should have produced an advanced simulator engine that is 64 bit and fully multithreaded. Instead it is still running on an inefficient bottlenecked 32 bit antique simulator engine.

[aussielozza70]

Don't MS understand what flight simmers like you and I want?? It seem's to me that they don't bother checking or reading feedback from us loyal FS freaks(that's what I get called by mates and my wife and kids lol) and put it into practice. I for 1 am going to the MS site and voicing my opinion, as it sounds like it's going to end up more a game than a simulator. I have all of MSFS's starting with 3.1 when it was just blue and green with white lines outlining the rwy's, what is wrong with these people. Too much money and no commonsense.
How dissapointing.
Will we ever see true video graphic's, I think not.
My spec's are as follows

64Bit system I7 2800 cpu,ATI Radeon HD4350 PCIE/1G(TC)/64Bit/DDR2/HDMI 3D video X2 bridged,16G RAM,4 22" monitors and dedicated 1 T HDrive for FSX only

[aussielozza70]

Well I'm 42 and been flying MSFS since MSFS 3.1 which was many years ago. Always remember there's a little boy in every man lol. I built my system myself and currently running as follows= 64Bit system I7 2800 cpu,ATI Radeon HD4350 PCIE/1G(TC)/64Bit/DDR2/HDMI 3D video X2 bridged,16G RAM,4 22" monitors and dedicated 1 T HDrive for FSX only.

[angels355]

Strangely enough we, the money paying customers are not important, irrelevant.

[mgh]

Don't MS understand what flight simmers like you and I want??

Yes it does but it's decided we're such a small market it's not worthwhile developing to provide what we want. Microsoft's target market has changed and we are not it - not that we ever really were, but that's another story.

[Firekitten]

What gets me, is the massive backpedaling on this forum... like Labradors in a whirl pool, the 'omg shut up flight will rock' types turned into 'well duh it wasn't going to be fsx2' almost overnight with the announcement. Funny that. Thing is,with tech reaching a point where fsx is easily usable on high settings, do you NEED another? or is it a case of emperor's new clothes? People are scattering from the sinking flight ship to aerofly... p3d... as though anything is better than what is currently hugely supported by the addon community, AND offers nearly all the features users wanted in flight... highly accurate aircraft, a simulated world, detailed terrain...

Orbx has said they plan to keep fsx as their main platform for the next 5-10 years... That's got to tell you something of the technical appreciation for what exists now.

[benEggleston16]

Yeah, I had the real plane in my hands from 7 to 11 years old flying cross country in thin air, between sharp white rocky mountains rising up on either side--really cleared the sinuses! I didn't need dumbed down aviation when I was a kid.
You were flying a real plane cross-country aged 7?

[benEggleston16]

Orbx has said they plan to keep fsx as their main platform for the next 5-10 years... That's got to tell you something of the technical appreciation for what exists now.
Ah, but they're developing with P3D in mind, FSX compatibility is a by-product since P3D is built on FSX

[fxsttcb]

P3D and FSX are both based on MS' commercial ESP source code...

[angels355]

You were flying a real plane cross-country aged 7?

Yes, my father was a former Navy pilot. He would take off and land, I would do the climb, cruise, descent, and hold it on course, and also I would keep an eye out for other planes, and places where we could ditch if we had to.

[angels355]

P3D and FSX are both based on MS' commercial ESP source code...

Those simualtor engines are out of date, we need a new 64 bit multithreaded sim engine. Who knows if we'll ever get it. Might be faster to buy a real plane. :D

[angels355]

Firekitten, I agree, FSX is the best possible flight simulator available right now.

[benEggleston16]

Yes, my father was a former Navy pilot. He would take off and land, I would do the climb, cruise, descent, and hold it on course, and also I would keep an eye out for other planes, and places where we could ditch if we had to.
Epic. Where was this? Most 7 year olds where I live have been on about 100 planes (I live in a rich area), all to PalmaMallorca or any where in the Med. At school though, they can barely count or spell 'Aeroplane'. Now at the age of 14, I still discover people who don't know the capital of Greece or where Dubai or Tenerife are despite themselves going there every few months

[angels355]

Epic. Where was this? Most 7 year olds where I live have been on about 100 planes (I live in a rich area), all to PalmaMallorca or any where in the Med. At school though, they can barely count or spell 'Aeroplane'. Now at the age of 14, I still discover people who don't know the capital of Greece :mad: or where Dubai or Tenerife are despite themselves going there every few months

We used to fly from KRNT if I recall, to a dirt road, or backyard grass runway, or the town small concrete airport in Montana, I can't say where to remain private. FS9 has that very backyard runway we used to land on. The people we visited were $$$, however from all outward appearances they looked poor and very ordinary, but that is because they were very hard working. My family back then looked downright impoverished and I guess we actually lived that way because my father was a real life Scrooge.

I repeated that flight many times in all types of aircraft, from the same type of fabric covered single engine plane, to the SR71. In the same type of plane flying slowly in the late afternoon over the mountains flying home Westbound, the descending Sun, and complete blackness over the mountains was very realistic compared to some of our real flights. My father left us so that was the end of the flight lessons, and I concentrated on what I could study at hand, the sciences.

[benEggleston16]

We used to fly from KRNT if I recall, to a dirt road, or backyard grass runway, or the town small concrete airport in Montana, I can't say where to remain private. FS9 has that very backyard runway we used to land on. The people we visited were $$$, however from all outward appearances they looked poor and very ordinary, but that is because they were very hard working. My family back then looked downright impoverished and I guess we actually lived that way because my father was a real life Scrooge.

I repeated that flight many times in all types of aircraft, from the same type of fabric covered single engine plane, to the SR71. In the same type of plane flying slowly in the late afternoon over the mountains flying home Westbound, the descending Sun, and complete blackness over the mountains was very realistic compared to some of our real flights. My father left us so that was the end of the flight lessons, and I concentrated on what I could study at hand, the sciences.
Very interesting, I don't want to say I had a childhood like that and sound ungrateful but that would be awesome. Why was your father a Scrooge if you looked impoverished? What does $$$ mean? Rich? I've seen M$, is that refering to MS's money?
I'm hoping to have my first flying lesson this year form EGNT

[angels355]

Very interesting, I don't want to say I had a childhood like that and sound ungrateful but that would be awesome. Why did was your father a Scrooge if you looked impoverished? What does $$$ mean? Rich? I've seen M$, is that refering to MS's money?
I'm hoping to have my first flying lesson this year form EGNT

The people we visited were very rich. My family had poor clothes, terrible house, because my father withheld money from us, while he enjoyed the money himself.

Perhaps you might become a professional pilot. We better stay on the thread topic.

[benEggleston16]

The people we visited were very rich. My family had poor clothes, terrible house, because my father withheld money from us, while he enjoyed the money himself.

Perhaps you might become a professional pilot. We better stay on the thread topic.

One last question: are you grateful for what your father did (flying lessons)?

[angels355]

One last question: are you grateful for what your father did (flying lessons)?

It was very beneficial to my life, but some things are very difficult to explain to a young person. He disappointed me very much. I admired and looked up to him, however he disappointed me greatly and let me down on a routine basis. I have considered changing my name because of these disappointments. When I was young in school I was bored by my studies because they were too easy, my father actually wanted to hold me back a year. Around 11 years old he was supposed to help me with my math, however he refused to help whatsoever. Entirely on my own without any instruction at all, I completed a year's worth of math in one month. I finally got some recognition at school, and I started skipping math grade level courses in the next few years, and skipped years in college also. I did that entirely on my own.

[Mogget]

Flight is old outdated technology, it's a joke. MS FS used to be about exceeding the capabilities of current hardware. How old is this technology, eight years? What happened to the razzle dazzle of MS?

Default MSFS has never been a looker. In fact, based on the few screenshots and videos that I have seen, MS Flight is closer to current technology than any other version of FS has been in the past.

[angels355]

Default MSFS has never been a looker. In fact, based on the few screenshots and videos that I have seen, MS Flight is closer to current technology than any other version of FS has been in the past.

Yes I think that is literally true, only they lightened it up to run on more ordinary equipment. Guess what I was upset about is that it is still using a 32 bit lightly multithreaded simulator engine, while by now our hardware needs a 64 bit engine plus full multithreading.

I have started flying FSX and I like it a lot. I'm not in a hurry to upgrade. I can get whatever I want for FSX.